Unwrapping: Wacky Wednesday - Test Your Ability to Recognize Old Romance From New

Anyone know what book this is from?

Test Your Ability to Recognize Old Romance

from New:

In my last post, I ranted a tiny bit about the young romance readers interjecting their own ideals and views about the heroine's first sexual experience with the hero in Historical Romance Novels from the 70's. I'm sure their views apply to all Romance Novels but I zeroed in on Historical because that's where I read most of the negative reviews. 

I'm curious to see how well my readers are able to instinctively know if a Historical Romance was written in the era of the "bodice rippers" of which the young readers have such a great disgust or if a Historical Romance is a product of the 21st Century. Shall we play a game?

I will list part of a scene from a Historical Romance without any other information given, I want you to tell me if the Romance was written pre- 2000 or post- 2000. Simple, huh? Answers can be found at a link at the end of this post. These might surprise you - some of you might recognize the lines but have fun anyway.

Game on!

Scene #1 -  "A chore, like any other? Very well, she told herself. Just get it done.

          She dropped her gaze to the bed, loath to watch him while she explained the horrid facts to him. "I must have a child, and it must be conceived immediately. You were chosen to aid me because your hair and eyes are the same as my husband's, for the child needs have the look of him. So we must copulate this night, and the next, and the next, until your seed bears fruit. I like this no better than you, but I have no choice - and neither do you."

           His chains rattled, but she would not look toward those expressive eyes of his. Briskly, she took hold of the thick sheet covering him and flipped it to the end of the bed, where it slithered to the floor."


Scene #2 - "Deliberately, [she] leaned forward until her breasts rested on his chest; and seizing upon all her imagination, she lowered parted lips and moved them slowly, warmly upon his. Her eyes flew wide as his mouth opened and twisted across hers, his tongue thrusting through as his arms went around her, crushing her in his embrace.  Her world careened crazily as he slowly turned until she half lay across his lap, her head pressed back against his shoulder. ... She should have found his blistering kiss repulsive, but in truth it was wildly exciting."

Scene #3 -  "[She] was so startled by the invasion she went completely still, her mind filling with confusion as the combination of the caresses and the kiss filled her with a sharp excitement that was almost overwhelming. She remained still and uncertain as his mouth explored hers, her hands balling into fists by her waist as he ... excuse the interruption - too racy for this blog ..., and the excitement spiked to a level that raised fear in her had her grabbing at the hand to stop him.
          [He] immediately stopped his caress, but he also broke their kiss to lift his head.
          'I am your husband.'
          He whispered the words against her lips and she stilled again, uncertainty flowing through her. He was her husband and had every right to do whatever he chose, ..."


Scene #4 -  "She stood there proud and unashamed to have him see her thus, with no attempt to cover herself in any way, and he looked long and hard, feasting on the reality of what he had only been able to imagine previously.  She was so very beautiful to him, so perfectly formed for all her height.
         [He] was unaware that he had walked to her, but he stood next to her now, the velvet gown forgotten, dropping from his fingers to the floor. Everything was forgotten as his hands rose to cup her cheeks, and he lowered his head to taste the nectar of her lips. Slowly, he tasted, gently at first to savor, then with the full measure of his need.
         In those first moments, he was so consumed with desire that he would not have noticed if [she] resisted. But she was not resisting in any way. ... she was kissing him back with an unrestrained abandon."

Okay, the rest is up to you ... which of these four scenes were written pre-2000 and which were written post-2000? 
According to some young reviewers, Historical Romance Novels written in the last quarter of the 20th Century were 'bodice rippers' perpetuating the 'rape fantasy' which disgusts them and, despite the writing skill of the authors, they prefer to call these novels 'trash'.

Click here for the answers!  Please come back and tell us how you did and feel free to share this test with those young whippersnappers who think they know all about those Historical Romances from the 70's!   : )

I know a lot of people are taking this test but not commenting - we'd love to know if you got them all correct or not. Don't have to tell specifically just a 'correct' or  'missed' will do.  Think of it as a survey - enquiring minds want to know.   : )
Happy Reading Everyone!

Unwrapping: Oh My, How Historical Romance Novels Have Changed!

Franz Eybl, Girl Reading, 1850 

When I first started reading Historical Romance Novels in the mid- 1970's, they were quite different from the novels in the genre today. Perhaps it was the times, perhaps it was the introduction of the sensual romance, or perhaps it was the feminist movement - whatever it was, things had changed. Sex had been introduced into the storyline in way it had never been written before, and Romance Novels would never be just those sweet romances ending with a chaste kiss ever again. The new Romance Novel was breaking ground and traveling a much different path that the Romances of today's genres.

Romance Novels in the '70's took heavy criticism but even television trended toward the same storylines. If you remember on the soap, GENERAL HOSPITAL, Luke Spencer raped Laura Weber and later they became the love story of the decade. Why were woman suddenly attracted to love stories that were built from an act of violence? Was it possible that along with all the freedoms that came with feminist liberation came a need for an escape into a fantasy that actually made the heroine a victim of a man's lust rather than a participant? With a newfound access to birth control, abortion and free wheeling sex, why then would women turn to a form of entertainment that placed the heroine back under the control of a man? Strangely enough, after the onslaught of AIDS with sex actually becoming something that could kill you, Romance Novels actually became tamer in comparison. Is there a correlation? If so, what does it say about out society now in regards to women and their sexual proclivities? I find the Romance Novels written today to be even more daring and the heroines independant and strong. Our heroines today make it clear they have a choice and in many of the books I read, the heroine is actually more sexually aggressive than the hero.  Nothing wrong with that now, is there? [wink, wink]

What do the young women of the 21st Century think of the first sexy bodice rippers? Well, after reading some of their reviews, I get the impression they don't like them very much. Now, that's a terrible shame.  I've read several reviews that called the Romance Novels of the '70's, disgusting and misogynistic. Not quite understanding the latter since most Romances are written by women - so are the writers really the ones who are misogynistic? One review even referred to one of the most read Romance Novels from this time as not being politically correct ... I believe she said that the author had sugar-coated the way slaves were treated.  HUH? Are we really looking for political correctness in our Romance Novels?

I fell in love with Historical Romances immediately upon reading my first, which was Kathleen E. Woodiwiss' THE FLAME AND THE FLOWER. I suppose, I could have read any of the many that inhabited the selling shelves but this one was my first and it was love at first read. I fell in love with Historical Romance for the settings, the eras, the history and the dangers that usually followed the heroine. These were stories written and published before most of the young women reading and reviewing books today were even born. I understand that the young woman reading romance today were raised in a society that expresses a greater respect for women in general and openly discusses its distaste for violence toward women. I agree that violence, in any form, against women, children, or men is completely uncivilized and should be abhorred for what it is - violence! So it should be, in the real world but not necessarily in our fiction! Fiction isn't real life, remember?!

By modern standards, I suppose the books of the 1970's were very violent toward women. Nearly every story had the heroine being raped by the man who would eventually fall in love with her and protect her with his own life if the need arose. Then again it's very possible that many older women who loved those books perhaps now find Romances featuring Vampires, Werewolves, Shape Shifters and Demons bordering on bestiality and anti-Christian. Not me, of course, I love them.

What has to be remembered is that Romance Novels reflect the social morality barometer in which they are written and Historical Romances are written, if written properly, to reflect the morality of the era in which the story is set. So, what may be socially acceptable in one era is not necessarily what may be socially acceptable to another era including our own.

For example, if the Romance is set in Regency England and the Hero is a member of ton society, he's probably less likely to forcibly seduce some young girl but then again, he might do just that if the opportunity presented itself or if the man was an evil S.O.B.  

Lydia and her Mr. Wickham -
he had no real intention of marrying her.

Even Jane Austen created characters whose intentions were less than honorable. Take Mr. Wickham of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE - he was most certainly not beyond taking advantage of a young girl's innocence to satisfy his lustful desires. Nor was Mr. Willoughby of SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, a man with good standing in society and a large income, in other words - a great catch. I suppose we forgave these indiscretions because neither of our favorite heroines, Elizabeth Bennet and Marianne Dashwood, fell completely under the spell of these dastardly dudes - of course, poor Lydia did fall prey to Wickham but I guess he was forgiven because he, himself, was seduced into marrying the silly girl by Darcy's offer to pay off his debts and buy him a commission. Had he refused, poor Lydia's fate would have been far worse than she knew. The point being that in a proper, genteel Regency Romance, you won't generally find our hero forceably seducing our heroine as it was often called during this era of 'bodice-rippers' but what about other historical eras? How genteel was a man from medievel times, the Scottish highlands, or the Russian Steppe many years before the influence of British Society?

As I've mentioned many times, I am a huge fan of Kathleen E. Woodiwiss - the Queen of Romance. Her first novel, THE FLAME AND THE FLOWER, published in 1972, was a turning point for the Romance genre. It was a Historical Romance built around research, a real story, and what really happens between a man and a woman - sex.  Unfortunately, by the standards of some of the young women who read Romance today, many consider it horrible and their reviews reflect their distaste.

When we first meet our heroine, Heather Simmons, she is fleeing one man's attempt to rape her only to find herself in the hands of a handsome sea captain, Brandon Birmingham, who is too deep in his cups (drunk). He mistakes her for one of the prostitutes that frequent the London docks and when she resists, he forces himself on her. I know, this perpetuates the idea that because a gal resists a little she's really not saying no, but yes, yes! In our society, this is a major wrong but in 1799??  The next morning, Brandon discovers the truth of what he's done. In an attempt to make amends, he offers to make her his mistress (at least he tried) but she promptly declines his offer. Later, when she discovers she's pregnant, he's forced to marry her. Consequently, neither are happy about it and so the real story begins. Forced seduction + forced marriage -- something not too uncommon in those days yet strangely enough, not too common today. What does that say about our society's morals?

Speaking of THOSE DAYS - many things were much more common in THOSE DAYS as compared to today especially when we look back into history. Life could be brutal, men could be brutal and it was accepted in THOSE DAYS because that's the way it was.

One of my favorite Historical Romance novels is WHITEFIRE by Fern Michaels, first published in 1978. I was already in love with anything to do with pre-revolutionary Russia after reading DR. ZHIVAGO and seeing the movie so I was immediately drawn to this one.

It is set in 16th Century Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Men from this time in history were brutal and violent. Banyon Amur is a Mongol Prince who was accustomed to having things his way and only his way. He takes what he wants without remorse so when he brutally rapes a young girl who he believes a peasant, he and everyone around him see nothing wrong.

It's the way it was back then, folks! It was NOT uncommon for women to be treated as possessions, objects of lust, used by men for their own satisfactions and then discarded. Had Banyon acted like a society gentleman and asked Katerina "Kat" Vaschenko, a young Cossack who was well aware of how women were looked down upon, out on a date or to a ball, the story would have been totally unbelievable. Life in the Ural Mountains in the 16th C. was hard and if you weren't tough, you died.  And it certainly wasn't politically correct!

I wonder if these storylines were a way of reminding us that a woman's first sexual experience is not always a fairy tale that sometimes it's violent in nature even when consentual. It's not always an experience that without love is something a woman wants to repeat but with a man who cares and is willing to be patient, the experience can be wonderful. Romance Novels do more than entertain us - sometimes they assist us in recognizing what's right and what's wrong. Perhaps a lesson about date rape before it became a recognized crime.

I love both of these books and highly recommend them not only because they are good reads but because if you've never read anything from this then newly emerging era of Romance, they are both fine examples of what was on the shelves back then. True, today's heroines are tough, strong-minded, and not so willing to take any crap off their men but then so are women of the 21st C.  Just as the past is much different from our modern world so goes the Romance genre, in particular, the Historical Romance sub-genre. Times were different in the 1970's, women were just beginning to really understand their freedom to live their lives as strong independant women with opinions, abilities and the freedom to say "no" to a man. I'm glad of these changes but just as we are proud of the generations that came before us and paved the way for our, in comparison, blessed lives so should we be proud of the generations of Romance Novels that led the way to the broad expanse of sub-genres that now grace our shelves, our reading tables and ereaders. So to Fern Michaels and the other wonderful authors who paved the way, and in memory of Ms. Woodiwiss, I say "thank you" and "hear, hear!" to the 70's Bodice Rippers!

I'm curious - when you're reading a Historical Romance Novel, do you want it to reflect the era realistically or just be a nice love story set once upon a time, a long time ago?

Happy Reading Everyone!